IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
R. SUBHASH REDDY, G. CHANDRAIAH & NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, JJ.
Dr. Gangaraju Sowmini & Another – Appellants
Versus
Alavala Sudhakar Reddy & Another – Respondents
M.A.C.M.A. Nos. 364 & 1020 of 2010
Decided On : 01-02-2016
Motor Vehicles Act - Section 166 - Accidents Claims Tribunal - The appellant/claimant is working as Assistant Professor in Gynaecology at Government hospital, Guntur. On 29.11.2000, while the claimant, her husband, daughter, mother, maternal aunt and deceased were proceeding in Maruti car bearing No.AP-07-3173 from Tirupati to Guntur, they met with an accident. It was the case of the claimant that the Lorry bearing No.AAN-6579, came on wrong side in the opposite direction at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against their Maruti car. Consequently, the brother and the mother of the claimant received grievous injuries and died on the spot and the claimant, her husband and maternal aunt suffered injuries. Based on the complaint lodged by them, a case was registered at P.S. Singarayakonda. By impleading the owner of the lorry as respondent No.1 and the Insurance Company as respondent No.2, claim was made by filing M.V.O.P.No.159 of 2002 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. – Held, the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manjuri Bera’s case (9 supra), wherein, it is held that the compensation to be awarded under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act will form part of the estate of deceased, and further, as the Act also provides for compensation on other conventional heads, we are of the view that the non-dependant also can lay a claim by filing application under Section 166 of the Act. It is also to be noticed that the situations may arise, where, one may have suffered injuries initially but ultimately after filing a claim, may have succumbed to such injuries also. In such an event, lot of amount would be spent towards hospitalisation etc., and as already discussed in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Montford Brothers’ case (5 supra), it is common in the Indian society, where, the members of the family who are not even dependant also can extend their support monetarily and otherwise to the victims of accidents to meet the immediate expenditure for hospitalization etc., in such cases, unless the legal representatives are allowed to continue the proceedings initiated by the person who succumbs to injuries subsequently, such claims will be defeated and that will also defeat the very object and intentment of the Act. Any such measure would be wholly un-equitable and unjust. Plainly, that would never be intent of any piece of legislation. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the language under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w. Rule 2(g) of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, we are of the view that even the legal representatives who are non-dependants can also lay a claim for payment of compensation by making application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act – Petition allowed
R. Subhash Reddy, J.
1. This Bench is constituted to answer the reference made in the above M.A.C.M.As. M.A.C.M.A.No.364 of 2010 is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Guntur, whereas, M.A.C.M.A.No.1020 of 2010 is filed by the National Insurance Company Limited, questioning the very award of compensation itself. For the purpose of this reference, we take the facts as narrated in M.A.C.M.A.No.364 of 2010.
2. The deceased Gangaraju Venkata Sudheer, who is the brother of the claimant, was aged about 22 years and was prosecuting his final year Medicine at BLD Medical College, Beejapur of Karnataka State. The appellant/claimant is working as Assistant Professor in Gynaecology at Government hospital, Guntur. On 29.11.2000, while the claimant, her husband, daughter, mother, maternal aunt and deceased were proceeding in Maruti car bearing No.AP-07-3173 from Tirupati to Guntur, they met with an accident. It was the case of the claimant that the Lorry bearing No.AAN-6579, came on wrong side in the opposite direction at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against their Maruti car. Consequently, the brother and the mother of the claimant received grievous injuries and died on the spot and the claimant, her husband and maternal aunt suffered injuries. Based on the complaint lodged by them, a case was registered at P.S. Singarayakonda. By impleading the owner of the lorry as respondent No.1 and the Insurance Company as respondent No.2, claim was made by filing M.V.O.P.No.159 of 2002 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.
3. The owner of the Lorry remained ex-parte and the Insurance Company contested the claim by filing counter affidavit. In the O.P., the Tribunal, by recording a finding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Lorry bearing No.AAN-6579, has allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.8,75,000/-. It was the specific case of the claimant that for the purpose of tuition fee of the deceased, she obtained loan from A.P.Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Hyderabad and was educating her deceased brother. On behalf of claimant, the certificate issued by the Medical college showing the fee paid for the deceased and also the notices demanding the payment of balance outstanding amount of loan, issued by A.P.Mahesh Co-operative Bank were exhibited.
4. Seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed M.A.C.M.A.No.364 of 2010, whereas, questioning the award of compensation, the Insurance Company has filed M.A.C.M.A.No.1020 of 2010. It was the case of the Insurance Company that the claimant was not dependant on the deceased, as such, she is not entitled for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
5. When the matters have come up before the Division Bench, in view of conflicting opinions rendered earlier by 2 different Division Benches in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. P. Satyavathamma, 2010 (3) ALT 433 and in Vanguard Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chellu Hanumantha Rao, 1975 ACJ 344, the Division Bench has referred the matters to the Full Bench, for answering the following question:
“Whether non-dependant heir of the deceased who died in a motor accident is entitled to lay claim for compensation under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 where there is no other dependant legal heir claiming compensation?”
In view of the general importance of the question referred, this Court has requested learned counsel Sri Kota Subba Rao and Sri E. Venugopal Reddy, to assist this Court as amicus curiae.
6. Heard Sri T.Mahender Rao, learned counsel for claimant and Sri Nisaruddin Ahmed Jeddy, learned counsel appearing for National Insurance Co. Ltd., and also the learned amicus curiae – Sri Kota Subba Rao and Sri E.Venugopal Reddy.
7. Prior to the enactment of the Motor Vehicles
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. P. Satyavathamma
Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & another
Montford Brothers of ST. Gabriel & another v. United India Insurance & another
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Poongavanam & others
Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & another
P.S. Somanathan & others v. District Insurance Officer & another
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.